Since the recovery began 2-1/2 years ago private household wealth has increased by almost $9Trillion while private debt's been falling steadily. It's all in "Balance Sheet of Households" on page 104 of the Fed's latest flow of funds report. While some say we should thank Obama for handling the economy so well, others would complain that American households still haven't recouped $8Trillion in losses since the 2007 peak.

It's a canard to blame or not blame Obama for not being back at the 2007 peak. We were at that level in 2007 because of a massive, artificial housing bubble that should never have existed. Without that bubble, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. What should Obama do, create another, bigger bubble?

We have to let the economy run its course. We didn't do that at the beginning of the century and now we are paying for it.

Do these numbers take inflation into account? Because have more money means nothing if everything is more expensive. Also, what recovery? Unemployment numbers 2 1/2 years ago were lower than they are now. Causation also needs to be explained as does the usefulness of net worth as a measure of economic health (it could also mean there is just another bubble).

Ordinarily I find the whole 'wealth inequality' schtick to be a bogus sham but for a few years now we got 5 or 6 million fewer people working while average wealth and average incomes have soared.

OK, so while one explanation is inequality of benefits, but how about the possibility that there was a greater inequality of losses leading up to the 2009 bottom?

Click to expand...

You make a good point. The reason for this inequality, IMO, is that government bails out its rich friends and contributors. The auto industry was bailed out, the banking industry was bailed out, all of these business people that should have failed did not. They got to keep their money and profits despite their mistakes. This is what happens when you let the government meddle in the economy. We have let inefficient industries suck up wealth when they should have failed or restructured themselves.

Thank Bernanke. It's a canard to blame or not blame Obama for not being back at the 2007 peak. We were at that level in 2007 because of a massive, artificial housing bubble...

Click to expand...

Blaming Obama for the real estate price surge before he took office is stupid lazy thinking. It's just like blaming Bernanke. Obama was elected in '08, Bernanke was named in '06, and the ten-year real estate price surge was from '97-'06, which is why a lot of people like to blame Barny Frank and his great big Fannie Mae.

My take is they'd be off the mark too because while housing was big it was not that important:
Stocks was far bigger, and they didn't tank until Obama turned America anti-investor in late '08.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!